Re: [geo] Fwd: Geoengineering and Capitalism

[Francis Micheal Ludlow]

Dear All,

Thank you for this interesting and important discussion.

A related query: I have been searching the literature for any information
on what industries are likely to be involved in producing the chemical
species needed to enact any potential SAI geoengineering. Pointers in this
direction would be appreciated.

I have heard it said in passing at workshops / conferences that this is
likely to involve, and offer significant profit opportunity to, the
petrochemical industry, but haven't yet seen any detailed discussion of
this in the literature (though I assume I am just overlooking this).

Francis

On 2 February 2018 at 13:16, Douglas MacMartin <macma...@cds.caltech.edu>
wrote:

> Hi Ryan, and all,
>
>
>
> Thanks for all of this.  I agree (and I think everyone is aware of the
> concern) that there is the potential for vested fossil fuel interests to
> seize on SRM as an excuse to avoid regulation – we saw that in Lamar
> Smith’s comments before the hearing last year (I don’t recall that he
> actually stayed to listen to the hearing, since all 4 of us repeated the
> fact that you can’t do that anyway, but I doubt that would have mattered).
>
>
>
> There were certainly a few connections people mentioned that I was unaware
> of (Shell funding some CDR) or had forgotten about (like Steve Koonin, my
> former provost, who had some passing interest and also had a brief stint at
> BP).  But all incredibly minor contributors to the subject.  I was simply
> reacting, as is Jesse, to the assertion in the email thread that they “fund
> many GE supporters” *in the present tense*.  Indeed, I think it is far
> more striking observation that the precise opposite is true – that at least
> as far as SRM is concerned, within a rounding error 100% of the interest,
> and even without a rounding error 100% of the research funding comes from
> people committed to mitigation.  Indeed, given that history, that might
> give some of us more hope for the future interests as well.
>
>
>
> As a minor point, Jesse already pointed out that Tillerson’s comment
> wasn’t about GE, but I’d also point out that you can’t use the fact that
> Ken and Bala used to work at Livermore as some mysterious connection to
> vested interests; Livermore has a great climate group that has been
> instrumental in CMIP and hence in IPCC, so by that argument you’d also have
> to assert that fossil fuel interests support climate science.
>
>
>
> doug
>
>
>
> *From:* Gunderson, Ryan [mailto:gunde...@miamioh.edu]
> *Sent:* Friday, February 02, 2018 7:29 AM
> *To:* Reynolds, J.L. (Jesse) <j.l.reyno...@uu.nl>
> *Cc:* m...@clivehamilton.com; Daniel B Kirk-Davidoff <da...@umd.edu>;
> Douglas MacMartin <macma...@cds.caltech.edu>; geoengineering <
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; brian.peter...@nau.edu;
> diana.stu...@nau.edu
>
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Fwd: Geoengineering and Capitalism
>
>
>
> Dear Jesse,
>
> I assume and hope that the majority GE scientists also support
> mitigation.  Certainly the most prominent do.
>
> Regarding the comment about GE as a "project of the right": As I mentioned
> in one of the emails with Dan, the concrete intentions (and I'd include
> political priorities here) of GE scientists may be relatively unimportant.
> What is more consequential, in my opinion, is what happens to GE in social,
> political, and economic context.  And why GE will likely pick up steam due
> to this context.  Our paper tries to highlight these social conditions as
> well as the types of justifications that appeal to powerful interests.  If
> the fossil fuel industry, climate change denialists like the Heartland
> Institute, and the GOP embrace GE, for example, it's worth asking why this
> is the case. (This does not mean that only the right supports GE research
> or deployment, or that something is "bad" just because the right supports
> it.  The right here is just meant to signify a group that best represents
> captial's interest in $ > burn fossil fuels > $$ > burn fossil fuels >
> $$$.)  I assume that the majority of GE scientists would argue that GE
> without mitigation is a problematic way forward (ocean acidification
> etc.).  Despite this, one should still try to understand the large appeal
> GE has to those who have a vested interest in burning fossil fuels to
> accumulate capital.  To me, the issue is "structural" - our paper is not an
> attempt to blame GE scientists for the prospects of deployment.
>
>
>
> Take care,
>
> Ryan
>
>
> --
> Ryan Gunderson, Ph.D.
>
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Sociology & Gerontology
> Miami University
>
> rgsoc.blogspot.com
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 2, 

RE: [geo] Fwd: Geoengineering and Capitalism

[Douglas MacMartin]

Hi Ryan, and all,

 

Thanks for all of this.  I agree (and I think everyone is aware of the concern) 
that there is the potential for vested fossil fuel interests to seize on SRM as 
an excuse to avoid regulation – we saw that in Lamar Smith’s comments before 
the hearing last year (I don’t recall that he actually stayed to listen to the 
hearing, since all 4 of us repeated the fact that you can’t do that anyway, but 
I doubt that would have mattered).

 

There were certainly a few connections people mentioned that I was unaware of 
(Shell funding some CDR) or had forgotten about (like Steve Koonin, my former 
provost, who had some passing interest and also had a brief stint at BP).  But 
all incredibly minor contributors to the subject.  I was simply reacting, as is 
Jesse, to the assertion in the email thread that they “fund many GE supporters” 
in the present tense.  Indeed, I think it is far more striking observation that 
the precise opposite is true – that at least as far as SRM is concerned, within 
a rounding error 100% of the interest, and even without a rounding error 100% 
of the research funding comes from people committed to mitigation.  Indeed, 
given that history, that might give some of us more hope for the future 
interests as well.

 

As a minor point, Jesse already pointed out that Tillerson’s comment wasn’t 
about GE, but I’d also point out that you can’t use the fact that Ken and Bala 
used to work at Livermore as some mysterious connection to vested interests; 
Livermore has a great climate group that has been instrumental in CMIP and 
hence in IPCC, so by that argument you’d also have to assert that fossil fuel 
interests support climate science. 

 

doug

 

From: Gunderson, Ryan [mailto:gunde...@miamioh.edu] 
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2018 7:29 AM
To: Reynolds, J.L. (Jesse) <j.l.reyno...@uu.nl>
Cc: m...@clivehamilton.com; Daniel B Kirk-Davidoff <da...@umd.edu>; Douglas 
MacMartin <macma...@cds.caltech.edu>; geoengineering 
<geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; brian.peter...@nau.edu; diana.stu...@nau.edu
Subject: Re: [geo] Fwd: Geoengineering and Capitalism

 

Dear Jesse,

I assume and hope that the majority GE scientists also support mitigation.  
Certainly the most prominent do. 

Regarding the comment about GE as a "project of the right": As I mentioned in 
one of the emails with Dan, the concrete intentions (and I'd include political 
priorities here) of GE scientists may be relatively unimportant. What is more 
consequential, in my opinion, is what happens to GE in social, political, and 
economic context.  And why GE will likely pick up steam due to this context.  
Our paper tries to highlight these social conditions as well as the types of 
justifications that appeal to powerful interests.  If the fossil fuel industry, 
climate change denialists like the Heartland Institute, and the GOP embrace GE, 
for example, it's worth asking why this is the case. (This does not mean that 
only the right supports GE research or deployment, or that something is "bad" 
just because the right supports it.  The right here is just meant to signify a 
group that best represents captial's interest in $ > burn fossil fuels > $$ > 
burn fossil fuels > $$$.)  I assume that the majority of GE scientists would 
argue that GE without mitigation is a problematic way forward (ocean 
acidification etc.).  Despite this, one should still try to understand the 
large appeal GE has to those who have a vested interest in burning fossil fuels 
to accumulate capital.  To me, the issue is "structural" - our paper is not an 
attempt to blame GE scientists for the prospects of deployment.

 

Take care,

Ryan 




--
Ryan Gunderson, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor
Department of Sociology & Gerontology
Miami University

rgsoc.blogspot.com <http://rgsoc.blogspot.com> 

 

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 2:47 AM, Reynolds, J.L. (Jesse) <j.l.reyno...@uu.nl 
<mailto:j.l.reyno...@uu.nl> > wrote:

Folks:

 

That “infamous statement by Exxon's Rex Tillerson” was about adaptation, not 
geoengineering: “And as human beings as a — as a — as a species, that’s why 
we’re all still here. We have spent our entire existence adapting, OK? So we 
will adapt to this.  Changes to weather patterns that move crop production 
areas around -- we’ll adapt to that. It’s an engineering problem and it has 
engineering solutions.” 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/13/rex-tillersons-view-of-climate-change-its-just-an-engineering-problem/
 

To my knowledge, Tillerson has never said a single word about geoengineering. 

 

The other purported connections – including those in the 2014 Hamilton essay 
that Ryan posted – are generally old, tenuous, and with CDR.

 

Anyone familiar with the geoengineering discourse could make a list of who have 
moved it substantially forward. Off the top of my head, I’d suggest Paul 
Crutzen, the US N

Re: [geo] Fwd: Geoengineering and Capitalism

[Gunderson, Ryan]

Dear Jesse,

I assume and hope that the majority GE scientists also support mitigation.
Certainly the most prominent do.

Regarding the comment about GE as a "project of the right": As I mentioned
in one of the emails with Dan, the concrete intentions (and I'd include
political priorities here) of GE scientists may be relatively unimportant.
What is more consequential, in my opinion, is what happens to GE in social,
political, and economic context.  And why GE will likely pick up steam due
to this context.  Our paper tries to highlight these social conditions as
well as the types of justifications that appeal to powerful interests.  If
the fossil fuel industry, climate change denialists like the Heartland
Institute, and the GOP embrace GE, for example, it's worth asking why this
is the case. (This does not mean that only the right supports GE research
or deployment, or that something is "bad" just because the right supports
it.  The right here is just meant to signify a group that best represents
captial's interest in $ > burn fossil fuels > $$ > burn fossil fuels >
$$$.)  I assume that the majority of GE scientists would argue that GE
without mitigation is a problematic way forward (ocean acidification
etc.).  Despite this, one should still try to understand the large appeal
GE has to those who have a vested interest in burning fossil fuels to
accumulate capital.  To me, the issue is "structural" - our paper is not an
attempt to blame GE scientists for the prospects of deployment.

Take care,

Ryan

--
Ryan Gunderson, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor
Department of Sociology & Gerontology
Miami University
rgsoc.blogspot.com

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 2:47 AM, Reynolds, J.L. (Jesse) <j.l.reyno...@uu.nl>
wrote:

> Folks:
>
>
>
> That “infamous statement by Exxon's Rex Tillerson” was about adaptation,
> not geoengineering: “And as human beings as a — as a — as a species, that’s
> why we’re all still here. We have spent our entire existence adapting, OK?
> So we will adapt to this.  Changes to weather patterns that move crop
> production areas around -- we’ll adapt to that. It’s an engineering problem
> and it has engineering solutions.”
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/
> wp/2016/12/13/rex-tillersons-view-of-climate-change-its-
> just-an-engineering-problem/
>
> To my knowledge, Tillerson has never said a single word about
> geoengineering.
>
>
>
> The other purported connections – including those in the 2014 Hamilton
> essay that Ryan posted – are generally old, tenuous, and with CDR.
>
>
>
> Anyone familiar with the geoengineering discourse could make a list of who
> have moved it substantially forward. Off the top of my head, I’d suggest
> Paul Crutzen, the US National Academies, the Royal Society, Mike
> MacCracken, David Keith, Ken Caldeira – each of whom has emphasized the
> primacy of mitigation. Shell, Steve Koonin, Lee Lane, and Newt Gingrich are
> bit players in this story, at best.
>
>
>
> In my opinion, claims that (solar) geoengineering is a project of the
> right are examples of people choosing limited evidence in order to reach a
> conclusion upon which they have already decided. I suspect that some of
> them know better.
>
>
>
> -Jesse
>
> *Dr. Jesse Reynolds* | Assistant Professor and Research Funding
> Coordinator | Institute for Jurisprudence, Constitutional and
> Administrative Law | Utrecht Centre for Water, Oceans and Sustainability
> Law | Faculty of Law, Economics and Governance | Utrecht University |
> Newtonlaan 201 |
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Newtonlaan+201%0D+%7C+3584+BH+Utrecht%0D+%7C+The+Netherlands=gmail=g>
> 3584 BH Utrecht |
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Newtonlaan+201%0D+%7C+3584+BH+Utrecht%0D+%7C+The+Netherlands=gmail=g>
>  The
> Netherlands
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Newtonlaan+201%0D+%7C+3584+BH+Utrecht%0D+%7C+The+Netherlands=gmail=g>
> | +31 (0) 30 253 7637 <+31%2030%20253%207637> | *j.l.reyno...@uu.nl
> <j.l.reyno...@uu.nl>* | www.uu.nl/staff/JLReynolds/ | jreynolds.org
>
> My latest publication: “Climate Engineering, Law, and Regulation
> <http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199680832.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199680832-e-71>”
> in *The Oxford Handbook on the Law and Regulation of Technology*
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@
> googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Clive Hamilton
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 1, 2018 23:25
> *To:* Daniel B Kirk-Davidoff <da...@umd.edu>
> *Cc:* Douglas MacMartin <macma...@cds.caltech.edu>; geoengineering <
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; gunde...@miamioh.edu;
> brian.peter...@nau.edu; diana.stu...@nau.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Fwd: Geoengineer

Re: [geo] Fwd: Geoengineering and Capitalism

[Peter Eisenberger]

In the paper 
http://www.chichilnisky.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Energy-Security-Economic-Development-and-Global-Warming-Addressing-short-and-long-term-challenges-2009..pdf


is formalized the relationship between technology development and economics 
where the feedback is positive
The more development ( based upon renewable energy hydrogen from water and 
carbon from the sky ( like nature does ) 
the better the climate and environment become .

There is no doubt as modern cellphones demonstrate that technology has economic 
and social implications but if instead of technology defining our future we 
define technology to give us the future we want 
This new type of innovation which I call Mindful Innovation is discussed at 
https://elkcoastinstitute.org/

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 31, 2018, at 1:10 PM, Daniel B Kirk-Davidoff  wrote:
> 
> Hi all, 
> 
> I reached out to the authors of that paper on geoengineering and capitalism.  
>  With their permission, I'm forwarding the conversation.  
> 
> Best, 
> Dan 
> 
> --
> Daniel Kirk-Davidoff
> 35 Dove St.
> Albany, NY 12210
> 518-434-0873
> 
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Gunderson, Ryan 
> Date: Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism
> To: Daniel Kirk-Davidoff 
> Cc: Diana Lynne Stuart , Brian Craig Petersen 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 
> You’re not boring me and I appreciate your suggestions and comments. I think 
> this will be become one of the most important discussions of the 21st 
> century. Though this may have to be my last email so I don’t distract myself 
> from research too much.
> 
> Regarding the intentions of GE advocates and GE as a fringe science: I’m 
> surprised by your comment that most GE advocates identify as enemies of the 
> fossil fuel industry. I’m surprised for two reasons. First, this is not a 
> common theme in the case for GE. The research on framing is fairly 
> consistent: economics and techno frames are core, though I understand that 
> there are moral cases too. I wouldn’t be surprised if the frame you’re 
> pushing catches on: GE-is-a 
> tool-for-climate-justice-and-opposition-to-it-is-a-reflection-of-privilege. 
> Biotech pushes the same narrative. The second reason I’m surprised is it 
> seems that the fossil fuel industry is supportive of GE, given that they fund 
> many GE supporters (Hamilton 2013).
> 
> One thing worth considering is that the concrete intentions of GE scientists 
> are relatively unimportant. But this requires a distinction between 
> subjective intentions and meaning-making, on the one hand, and unintended 
> outcomes and social structure on the other. For example, in the unlikely case 
> that every current GE scientist that reads our paper were convinced that GE 
> is a tool for the reproduction of capitalism and detrimental to mitigation 
> (though from your review of the listserv's reception, this seems very 
> unlikely), I bet other bodies and minds will fill their roles for reasons 
> argued in the paper. It may be a fringe science now but it will only grow 
> along with GDP and the burning of fossil fuels. At the risk of sounding 
> deterministic, I think SRM is almost fated if capitalism lumbers on, 
> regardless of, or even in spite of, the intentions of GE scientists. To give 
> a seemingly unrelated example. When I teach a class my intention is to foster 
> critical thinking skills, to pass on facts about society and the environment, 
> to get kids to look at the world in new ways, etc. But perhaps what I’m 
> actually doing, despite these intentions, is creating the next generation of 
> worker-consumers that are punished if they don’t show up on time and follow 
> directions.
> 
> Regarding jargon and style/polemics: I’m genuinely sorry to hear that the 
> paper was cast off as jargony. We strive to make critical theory as clear as 
> possible. It’s a difficult tradition to digest, but that's the nature of 
> nearly all German philosophy and sociology. The distinction between essence 
> and appearance is older than Plato, it just takes a slightly different form 
> since Hegel.  Marcuse is firmly rooted in the Western tradition and committed 
> to the goals of the Enlightenment. The “this is silly pomo crap so I’m going 
> to read further” doesn’t fit. Historically, scientists have read philosophy 
> closely. If Einstein could regularly quote Spinoza and Schopenhauer, I think 
> GE scientists can take some time to think through new concepts and arguments 
> (technology embodies values, these values are restricted by social structure, 
> etc.). All GE advocates have an implicit theory of technology even if they 
> never justify it and it is taken to be commonsense. Feenberg’s Questioning 
> Technology is highly recommended for engaging in the very long 

RE: [geo] Fwd: Geoengineering and Capitalism

[Reynolds, J.L. (Jesse)]

Folks:

That “infamous statement by Exxon's Rex Tillerson” was about adaptation, not 
geoengineering: “And as human beings as a — as a — as a species, that’s why 
we’re all still here. We have spent our entire existence adapting, OK? So we 
will adapt to this.  Changes to weather patterns that move crop production 
areas around -- we’ll adapt to that. It’s an engineering problem and it has 
engineering solutions.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/13/rex-tillersons-view-of-climate-change-its-just-an-engineering-problem/
To my knowledge, Tillerson has never said a single word about geoengineering.

The other purported connections – including those in the 2014 Hamilton essay 
that Ryan posted – are generally old, tenuous, and with CDR.

Anyone familiar with the geoengineering discourse could make a list of who have 
moved it substantially forward. Off the top of my head, I’d suggest Paul 
Crutzen, the US National Academies, the Royal Society, Mike MacCracken, David 
Keith, Ken Caldeira – each of whom has emphasized the primacy of mitigation. 
Shell, Steve Koonin, Lee Lane, and Newt Gingrich are bit players in this story, 
at best.

In my opinion, claims that (solar) geoengineering is a project of the right are 
examples of people choosing limited evidence in order to reach a conclusion 
upon which they have already decided. I suspect that some of them know better.

-Jesse
Dr. Jesse Reynolds | Assistant Professor and Research Funding Coordinator | 
Institute for Jurisprudence, Constitutional and Administrative Law | Utrecht 
Centre for Water, Oceans and Sustainability Law | Faculty of Law, Economics and 
Governance | Utrecht University | Newtonlaan 201 | 3584 BH Utrecht | The 
Netherlands | +31 (0) 30 253 7637 | 
j.l.reyno...@uu.nl<mailto:j.l.reyno...@uu.nl> | 
www.uu.nl/staff/JLReynolds/<http://www.uu.nl/staff/JLReynolds/> | 
jreynolds.org<http://jreynolds.org/>
My latest publication: “Climate Engineering, Law, and 
Regulation<http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199680832.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199680832-e-71>”
 in The Oxford Handbook on the Law and Regulation of Technology

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Clive Hamilton
Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2018 23:25
To: Daniel B Kirk-Davidoff <da...@umd.edu>
Cc: Douglas MacMartin <macma...@cds.caltech.edu>; geoengineering 
<geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; gunde...@miamioh.edu; 
brian.peter...@nau.edu; diana.stu...@nau.edu
Subject: Re: [geo] Fwd: Geoengineering and Capitalism

There's a bit more:

Royal Dutch Shell was funding an ocean liming study
Steve Koonin of BP chaired an expert meeting at Novim
And if course there was the infamous statement by Exxon's Rex Tillerson that 
climate change is an engineering problem with 'engineering solutions'.
See pp 77-8 pf Earthmasters.

I haven't followed things closely for a couple of years, but I am not aware of 
anything more.

Clive

On 2 February 2018 at 09:05, Daniel B Kirk-Davidoff 
<da...@umd.edu<mailto:da...@umd.edu>> wrote:
The Hamilton reference points to Haroon Kheshgi at Exxon-Mobil as an enthusiast 
of ocean liming as far back as 1995 and has having put out a report on 
stratospheric aerosol SRM.

Dan

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 4:36 PM, Douglas MacMartin 
<macma...@cds.caltech.edu<mailto:macma...@cds.caltech.edu>> wrote:
Sorry, couldn’t leave this alone…  I do find this sentence interesting:

The second reason I’m surprised is it seems that the fossil fuel industry is 
supportive of GE, given that they fund many GE supporters (Hamilton 2013).

The only connection I’m aware of between the fossil fuel industry and GE is 
that Lee Lane showed up at a geoengineering meeting in 2006.  Has anyone 
actually had their research funded by the fossil fuel industry?  Is there any 
support for that assertion?

I’m also not sure what a “GE supporter” looks like, or whether I’ve ever met 
one (or indeed, whether such people exist in the scientific community).  I 
really do wish people would distinguish between “supports doing research so we 
can understand it” and “supports deploying it”.

doug


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>]
 On Behalf Of Daniel B Kirk-Davidoff
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 10:11 AM
To: geoengineering 
<geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>; 
gunde...@miamioh.edu<mailto:gunde...@miamioh.edu>; 
brian.peter...@nau.edu<mailto:brian.peter...@nau.edu>; 
diana.stu...@nau.edu<mailto:diana.stu...@nau.edu>
Subject: [geo] Fwd: Geoengineering and Capitalism

Hi all,

I reached out to the authors of that paper on geoengineering and capitalism.   
With their permission, I'm forwarding the conversation.

Best,
Dan

---

Re: [geo] Fwd: Geoengineering and Capitalism

[Clive Hamilton]

There's a bit more:

Royal Dutch Shell was funding an ocean liming study
Steve Koonin of BP chaired an expert meeting at Novim
And if course there was the infamous statement by Exxon's Rex Tillerson
that climate change is an engineering problem with 'engineering solutions'.
See pp 77-8 pf Earthmasters.

I haven't followed things closely for a couple of years, but I am not aware
of anything more.

Clive

On 2 February 2018 at 09:05, Daniel B Kirk-Davidoff <da...@umd.edu> wrote:

> The Hamilton reference points to Haroon Kheshgi at Exxon-Mobil as an
> enthusiast of ocean liming as far back as 1995 and has having put out a
> report on stratospheric aerosol SRM.
>
> Dan
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 4:36 PM, Douglas MacMartin <
> macma...@cds.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, couldn’t leave this alone…  I do find this sentence interesting:
>>
>>
>>
>> The second reason I’m surprised is it seems that the fossil fuel industry
>> is supportive of GE, given that they fund many GE supporters (Hamilton
>> 2013).
>>
>>
>>
>> The only connection I’m aware of between the fossil fuel industry and GE
>> is that Lee Lane showed up at a geoengineering meeting in 2006.  Has anyone
>> actually had their research funded by the fossil fuel industry?  Is there
>> any support for that assertion?
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m also not sure what a “GE supporter” looks like, or whether I’ve ever
>> met one (or indeed, whether such people exist in the scientific
>> community).  I really do wish people would distinguish between “supports
>> doing research so we can understand it” and “supports deploying it”.
>>
>>
>>
>> doug
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googleg
>> roups.com] *On Behalf Of *Daniel B Kirk-Davidoff
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 31, 2018 10:11 AM
>> *To:* geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>;
>> gunde...@miamioh.edu; brian.peter...@nau.edu; diana.stu...@nau.edu
>> *Subject:* [geo] Fwd: Geoengineering and Capitalism
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>>
>> I reached out to the authors of that paper on geoengineering and
>> capitalism.   With their permission, I'm forwarding the conversation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Kirk-Davidoff
>> 35 Dove St.
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=35+Dove+St.+Albany,+NY+12210518=gmail=g>
>> Albany, NY 12210
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=35+Dove+St.+Albany,+NY+12210518=gmail=g>
>>
>> 518-434-0873 <(518)%20434-0873>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: *Gunderson, Ryan* <gunde...@miamioh.edu>
>> Date: Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:37 PM
>> Subject: Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism
>> To: Daniel Kirk-Davidoff <dkirkdavid...@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Diana Lynne Stuart <diana.stu...@nau.edu>, Brian Craig Petersen <
>> brian.peter...@nau.edu>
>>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>>
>>
>> You’re not boring me and I appreciate your suggestions and comments. I
>> think this will be become one of the most important discussions of the 21st
>> century. Though this may have to be my last email so I don’t distract
>> myself from research too much.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regarding the intentions of GE advocates and GE as a fringe science: I’m
>> surprised by your comment that most GE advocates identify as enemies of the
>> fossil fuel industry. I’m surprised for two reasons. First, this is not a
>> common theme in the case for GE. The research on framing is fairly
>> consistent: economics and techno frames are core, though I understand that
>> there are moral cases too. I wouldn’t be surprised if the frame you’re
>> pushing catches on: GE-is-a tool-for-climate-justice-and-o
>> pposition-to-it-is-a-reflection-of-privilege. Biotech pushes the same
>> narrative. The second reason I’m surprised is it seems that the fossil fuel
>> industry is supportive of GE, given that they fund many GE supporters
>> (Hamilton 2013).
>>
>>
>>
>> One thing worth considering is that the concrete intentions of GE
>> scientists are relatively unimportant. But this requires a distinction
>> between subjective intentions and meaning-making, on the one hand, and
>> unintended outcomes and social structure on the other. For example, in the
>> unlikely case that every current GE scientist that reads our paper were
>> convinced that GE 

Re: [geo] Fwd: Geoengineering and Capitalism

[Gunderson, Ryan]

Hi Doug,

Along with Earthmasters, this is worth a read:

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0096340214531173

Regarding your other question, our paper does make a distinction between
support for research and support for deployment.  Note that our paper is
more precise than my email exchange with Dan.

Take care,

Ryan

--
Ryan Gunderson, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor
Department of Sociology & Gerontology
Miami University
rgsoc.blogspot.com

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 5:05 PM, Daniel B Kirk-Davidoff <da...@umd.edu>
wrote:

> The Hamilton reference points to Haroon Kheshgi at Exxon-Mobil as an
> enthusiast of ocean liming as far back as 1995 and has having put out a
> report on stratospheric aerosol SRM.
>
> Dan
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 4:36 PM, Douglas MacMartin <
> macma...@cds.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, couldn’t leave this alone…  I do find this sentence interesting:
>>
>>
>>
>> The second reason I’m surprised is it seems that the fossil fuel industry
>> is supportive of GE, given that they fund many GE supporters (Hamilton
>> 2013).
>>
>>
>>
>> The only connection I’m aware of between the fossil fuel industry and GE
>> is that Lee Lane showed up at a geoengineering meeting in 2006.  Has anyone
>> actually had their research funded by the fossil fuel industry?  Is there
>> any support for that assertion?
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m also not sure what a “GE supporter” looks like, or whether I’ve ever
>> met one (or indeed, whether such people exist in the scientific
>> community).  I really do wish people would distinguish between “supports
>> doing research so we can understand it” and “supports deploying it”.
>>
>>
>>
>> doug
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googleg
>> roups.com] *On Behalf Of *Daniel B Kirk-Davidoff
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 31, 2018 10:11 AM
>> *To:* geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>;
>> gunde...@miamioh.edu; brian.peter...@nau.edu; diana.stu...@nau.edu
>> *Subject:* [geo] Fwd: Geoengineering and Capitalism
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>>
>> I reached out to the authors of that paper on geoengineering and
>> capitalism.   With their permission, I'm forwarding the conversation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Kirk-Davidoff
>> 35 Dove St.
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=35+Dove+St.+Albany,+NY+12210518=gmail=g>
>> Albany, NY 12210
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=35+Dove+St.+Albany,+NY+12210518=gmail=g>
>>
>> 518-434-0873 <(518)%20434-0873>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: *Gunderson, Ryan* <gunde...@miamioh.edu>
>> Date: Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:37 PM
>> Subject: Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism
>> To: Daniel Kirk-Davidoff <dkirkdavid...@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Diana Lynne Stuart <diana.stu...@nau.edu>, Brian Craig Petersen <
>> brian.peter...@nau.edu>
>>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>>
>>
>> You’re not boring me and I appreciate your suggestions and comments. I
>> think this will be become one of the most important discussions of the 21st
>> century. Though this may have to be my last email so I don’t distract
>> myself from research too much.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regarding the intentions of GE advocates and GE as a fringe science: I’m
>> surprised by your comment that most GE advocates identify as enemies of the
>> fossil fuel industry. I’m surprised for two reasons. First, this is not a
>> common theme in the case for GE. The research on framing is fairly
>> consistent: economics and techno frames are core, though I understand that
>> there are moral cases too. I wouldn’t be surprised if the frame you’re
>> pushing catches on: GE-is-a tool-for-climate-justice-and-o
>> pposition-to-it-is-a-reflection-of-privilege. Biotech pushes the same
>> narrative. The second reason I’m surprised is it seems that the fossil fuel
>> industry is supportive of GE, given that they fund many GE supporters
>> (Hamilton 2013).
>>
>>
>>
>> One thing worth considering is that the concrete intentions of GE
>> scientists are relatively unimportant. But this requires a distinction
>> between subjective intentions and meaning-making, on the one hand, and
>> unintended outcomes and social structure on the other. For example, in the
>> unlikely case that every current GE scientist th

Re: [geo] Fwd: Geoengineering and Capitalism

[Daniel B Kirk-Davidoff]

The Hamilton reference points to Haroon Kheshgi at Exxon-Mobil as an
enthusiast of ocean liming as far back as 1995 and has having put out a
report on stratospheric aerosol SRM.

Dan

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 4:36 PM, Douglas MacMartin <macma...@cds.caltech.edu>
wrote:

> Sorry, couldn’t leave this alone…  I do find this sentence interesting:
>
>
>
> The second reason I’m surprised is it seems that the fossil fuel industry
> is supportive of GE, given that they fund many GE supporters (Hamilton
> 2013).
>
>
>
> The only connection I’m aware of between the fossil fuel industry and GE
> is that Lee Lane showed up at a geoengineering meeting in 2006.  Has anyone
> actually had their research funded by the fossil fuel industry?  Is there
> any support for that assertion?
>
>
>
> I’m also not sure what a “GE supporter” looks like, or whether I’ve ever
> met one (or indeed, whether such people exist in the scientific
> community).  I really do wish people would distinguish between “supports
> doing research so we can understand it” and “supports deploying it”.
>
>
>
> doug
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@
> googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Daniel B Kirk-Davidoff
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 31, 2018 10:11 AM
> *To:* geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>;
> gunde...@miamioh.edu; brian.peter...@nau.edu; diana.stu...@nau.edu
> *Subject:* [geo] Fwd: Geoengineering and Capitalism
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I reached out to the authors of that paper on geoengineering and
> capitalism.   With their permission, I'm forwarding the conversation.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Dan
>
>
> --
> Daniel Kirk-Davidoff
> 35 Dove St.
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=35+Dove+St.+Albany,+NY+12210518=gmail=g>
> Albany, NY 12210
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=35+Dove+St.+Albany,+NY+12210518=gmail=g>
>
> 518-434-0873 <(518)%20434-0873>
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: *Gunderson, Ryan* <gunde...@miamioh.edu>
> Date: Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism
> To: Daniel Kirk-Davidoff <dkirkdavid...@gmail.com>
> Cc: Diana Lynne Stuart <diana.stu...@nau.edu>, Brian Craig Petersen <
> brian.peter...@nau.edu>
>
> Hi Dan,
>
>
>
> You’re not boring me and I appreciate your suggestions and comments. I
> think this will be become one of the most important discussions of the 21st
> century. Though this may have to be my last email so I don’t distract
> myself from research too much.
>
>
>
> Regarding the intentions of GE advocates and GE as a fringe science: I’m
> surprised by your comment that most GE advocates identify as enemies of the
> fossil fuel industry. I’m surprised for two reasons. First, this is not a
> common theme in the case for GE. The research on framing is fairly
> consistent: economics and techno frames are core, though I understand that
> there are moral cases too. I wouldn’t be surprised if the frame you’re
> pushing catches on: GE-is-a tool-for-climate-justice-and-
> opposition-to-it-is-a-reflection-of-privilege. Biotech pushes the same
> narrative. The second reason I’m surprised is it seems that the fossil fuel
> industry is supportive of GE, given that they fund many GE supporters
> (Hamilton 2013).
>
>
>
> One thing worth considering is that the concrete intentions of GE
> scientists are relatively unimportant. But this requires a distinction
> between subjective intentions and meaning-making, on the one hand, and
> unintended outcomes and social structure on the other. For example, in the
> unlikely case that every current GE scientist that reads our paper were
> convinced that GE is a tool for the reproduction of capitalism and
> detrimental to mitigation (though from your review of the listserv's
> reception, this seems very unlikely), I bet other bodies and minds will
> fill their roles for reasons argued in the paper. It may be a fringe
> science now but it will only grow along with GDP and the burning of fossil
> fuels. At the risk of sounding deterministic, I think SRM is almost fated
> if capitalism lumbers on, regardless of, or even in spite of, the
> intentions of GE scientists. To give a seemingly unrelated example. When I
> teach a class my intention is to foster critical thinking skills, to pass
> on facts about society and the environment, to get kids to look at the
> world in new ways, etc. But perhaps what I’m actually doing, despite these
> intentions, is creating the next generation of worker-consumers that are
> punished if they don’t show up on time 

RE: [geo] Fwd: Geoengineering and Capitalism

[Douglas MacMartin]

Sorry, couldn’t leave this alone…  I do find this sentence interesting:

 

The second reason I’m surprised is it seems that the fossil fuel industry is 
supportive of GE, given that they fund many GE supporters (Hamilton 2013).

 

The only connection I’m aware of between the fossil fuel industry and GE is 
that Lee Lane showed up at a geoengineering meeting in 2006.  Has anyone 
actually had their research funded by the fossil fuel industry?  Is there any 
support for that assertion?

 

I’m also not sure what a “GE supporter” looks like, or whether I’ve ever met 
one (or indeed, whether such people exist in the scientific community).  I 
really do wish people would distinguish between “supports doing research so we 
can understand it” and “supports deploying it”.  

 

doug

 

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Daniel B Kirk-Davidoff
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 10:11 AM
To: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; gunde...@miamioh.edu; 
brian.peter...@nau.edu; diana.stu...@nau.edu
Subject: [geo] Fwd: Geoengineering and Capitalism

 

Hi all, 

 

I reached out to the authors of that paper on geoengineering and capitalism.   
With their permission, I'm forwarding the conversation.  

 

Best, 

Dan 




--
Daniel Kirk-Davidoff
35 Dove St. 
<https://maps.google.com/?q=35+Dove+St.+Albany,+NY+12210518=gmail=g>
 
Albany, NY 12210 
<https://maps.google.com/?q=35+Dove+St.+Albany,+NY+12210518=gmail=g>
 

518-434-0873 <tel:(518)%20434-0873> 

 

-- Forwarded message --
From: Gunderson, Ryan <gunde...@miamioh.edu <mailto:gunde...@miamioh.edu> >
Date: Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism
To: Daniel Kirk-Davidoff <dkirkdavid...@gmail.com 
<mailto:dkirkdavid...@gmail.com> >
Cc: Diana Lynne Stuart <diana.stu...@nau.edu <mailto:diana.stu...@nau.edu> >, 
Brian Craig Petersen <brian.peter...@nau.edu <mailto:brian.peter...@nau.edu> >



Hi Dan,

 

You’re not boring me and I appreciate your suggestions and comments. I think 
this will be become one of the most important discussions of the 21st century. 
Though this may have to be my last email so I don’t distract myself from 
research too much.

 

Regarding the intentions of GE advocates and GE as a fringe science: I’m 
surprised by your comment that most GE advocates identify as enemies of the 
fossil fuel industry. I’m surprised for two reasons. First, this is not a 
common theme in the case for GE. The research on framing is fairly consistent: 
economics and techno frames are core, though I understand that there are moral 
cases too. I wouldn’t be surprised if the frame you’re pushing catches on: 
GE-is-a 
tool-for-climate-justice-and-opposition-to-it-is-a-reflection-of-privilege. 
Biotech pushes the same narrative. The second reason I’m surprised is it seems 
that the fossil fuel industry is supportive of GE, given that they fund many GE 
supporters (Hamilton 2013).

 

One thing worth considering is that the concrete intentions of GE scientists 
are relatively unimportant. But this requires a distinction between subjective 
intentions and meaning-making, on the one hand, and unintended outcomes and 
social structure on the other. For example, in the unlikely case that every 
current GE scientist that reads our paper were convinced that GE is a tool for 
the reproduction of capitalism and detrimental to mitigation (though from your 
review of the listserv's reception, this seems very unlikely), I bet other 
bodies and minds will fill their roles for reasons argued in the paper. It may 
be a fringe science now but it will only grow along with GDP and the burning of 
fossil fuels. At the risk of sounding deterministic, I think SRM is almost 
fated if capitalism lumbers on, regardless of, or even in spite of, the 
intentions of GE scientists. To give a seemingly unrelated example. When I 
teach a class my intention is to foster critical thinking skills, to pass on 
facts about society and the environment, to get kids to look at the world in 
new ways, etc. But perhaps what I’m actually doing, despite these intentions, 
is creating the next generation of worker-consumers that are punished if they 
don’t show up on time and follow directions.

 

Regarding jargon and style/polemics: I’m genuinely sorry to hear that the paper 
was cast off as jargony. We strive to make critical theory as clear as 
possible. It’s a difficult tradition to digest, but that's the nature of nearly 
all German philosophy and sociology. The distinction between essence and 
appearance is older than Plato, it just takes a slightly different form since 
Hegel.  Marcuse is firmly rooted in the Western tradition and committed to the 
goals of the Enlightenment. The “this is silly pomo crap so I’m going to read 
further” doesn’t fit. H

[geo] Fwd: Geoengineering and Capitalism

[Daniel B Kirk-Davidoff]

Hi all,

I reached out to the authors of that paper on geoengineering and
capitalism.   With their permission, I'm forwarding the conversation.

Best,
Dan

--
Daniel Kirk-Davidoff
35 Dove St.

Albany, NY 12210

518-434-0873 <(518)%20434-0873>

-- Forwarded message --
From: Gunderson, Ryan 
Date: Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism
To: Daniel Kirk-Davidoff 
Cc: Diana Lynne Stuart , Brian Craig Petersen <
brian.peter...@nau.edu>


Hi Dan,

You’re not boring me and I appreciate your suggestions and comments. I
think this will be become one of the most important discussions of the 21st
century. Though this may have to be my last email so I don’t distract
myself from research too much.

Regarding the intentions of GE advocates and GE as a fringe science: I’m
surprised by your comment that most GE advocates identify as enemies of the
fossil fuel industry. I’m surprised for two reasons. First, this is not a
common theme in the case for GE. The research on framing is fairly
consistent: economics and techno frames are core, though I understand that
there are moral cases too. I wouldn’t be surprised if the frame you’re
pushing catches on: GE-is-a tool-for-climate-justice-and-o
pposition-to-it-is-a-reflection-of-privilege. Biotech pushes the same
narrative. The second reason I’m surprised is it seems that the fossil fuel
industry is supportive of GE, given that they fund many GE supporters
(Hamilton 2013).

One thing worth considering is that the concrete intentions of GE
scientists are relatively unimportant. But this requires a distinction
between subjective intentions and meaning-making, on the one hand, and
unintended outcomes and social structure on the other. For example, in the
unlikely case that every current GE scientist that reads our paper were
convinced that GE is a tool for the reproduction of capitalism and
detrimental to mitigation (though from your review of the listserv's
reception, this seems very unlikely), I bet other bodies and minds will
fill their roles for reasons argued in the paper. It may be a fringe
science now but it will only grow along with GDP and the burning of fossil
fuels. At the risk of sounding deterministic, I think SRM is almost fated
if capitalism lumbers on, regardless of, or even in spite of, the
intentions of GE scientists. To give a seemingly unrelated example. When I
teach a class my intention is to foster critical thinking skills, to pass
on facts about society and the environment, to get kids to look at the
world in new ways, etc. But perhaps what I’m actually doing, despite these
intentions, is creating the next generation of worker-consumers that are
punished if they don’t show up on time and follow directions.

Regarding jargon and style/polemics: I’m genuinely sorry to hear that the
paper was cast off as jargony. We strive to make critical theory as clear
as possible. It’s a difficult tradition to digest, but that's the nature of
nearly all German philosophy and sociology. The distinction between essence
and appearance is older than Plato, it just takes a slightly different form
since Hegel.  Marcuse is firmly rooted in the Western tradition and
committed to the goals of the Enlightenment. The “this is silly pomo crap
so I’m going to read further” doesn’t fit. Historically, scientists have
read philosophy closely. If Einstein could regularly quote Spinoza and
Schopenhauer, I think GE scientists can take some time to think through new
concepts and arguments (technology embodies values, these values are
restricted by social structure, etc.). All GE advocates have an implicit
theory of technology even if they never justify it and it is taken to be
commonsense. Feenberg’s Questioning Technology is highly recommended for
engaging in the very long conversation about what technology is, exactly.

I admit it is a polemical paper and am saddened if it was not read closely
due to the tone. However, I don’t mind if this just means it ruffled
feathers. I would be delighted if political economy became a central
concern of the GE debate.

Regarding aid to the poor: Although this is an aside, it’s worth noting
that aid given to poor countries, and the reasons capital interacts with
poor countries at all, may be different than official narratives or our
commonsense.  If interested, check out world-systems research and
dependency theory. This is also a good example of why we should distinguish
between subjective intention and structure, and what is possible and what
is.

Unless Diana and Brian object, you're more than welcome to forward our
conversation to that GE listserv you mentioned.  It may help clarify things
and, hopefully, encourage GE advocates to give