[geo] Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism

[Leon Di Marco]

let me further refine the hierarchy  (priority) as 
1 CDR required
2 CDR+   SRMpossible
3 SRM  unlikely
(where 3 may be required to mitigate ocean heat content )
 mitigation and adaptation to emissions are not included as they are 
essential for all scenarios

I dont have any issue with research into SRM - the question about 
implementation concerns risk/return and this is a complex socio economic 
problem - not an all conquering  grand engineering scheme in the way that 
it is usually presented
LDM


On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 6:10:52 PM UTC, dankd 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 conversation about what technology is, exactly.
>
> I admit it is a polemical paper and am saddened if it was not read closely 

Re: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism

[Andrew Lockley]

"Peak shaving" has indeed been proposed by:

Long and Shepherd

Long, J. C. S. and Shepherd, J. G. (2014). "The Strategic Value of
Geoengineering Research"  in  "Global Environmental Change, Handbook of
Global Environmental Pollution". Freedman, B. (ed) Dordrecht, Springer
Netherlands. *1: *757-770.
Keith et al.,
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8d53/c7f4be0970c8101ffd6ed3bf699dd773d5b1.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwju453O_JDZAhWkDMAKHfj7AFUQFgg7MAQ&usg=AOvVaw1kBnv7d887JRhU36GBRCJj

On 6 Feb 2018 03:24, "Michael MacCracken"  wrote:

> In addition to Doug's comment, I'd add that different technologies can be
> applied to different degrees. During the early 2000s there were, at least
> some scientific studies indicate that some small volcanic eruptions likely
> contributed to a modest slowing of the GHG-induced warming--and except for
> some very detailed scientific analyses, virtually no one noticed the
> adverse effects of the eruptions. Would there be those who would prefer
> ongoing GHG warming with the acceleration that the recent UKMO analysis
> indicated to a situation where Nature happened to provide further a series
> of volcanic eruptions in remote areas injecting some small ongoing amounts
> of sulfur dioxide injection into the stratosphere, say just enough to
> counter-balance each year's GHG increment. Were Nature doing it, there
> might well be thanks for it occurring--but apparently if done by SRM, some
> seem to see it as something not to even be considered.
>
> Now, it is the case if this became seen as the only approach being
> pursued, that would be very unfortunate. Basically, neither mitigation, nor
> adaptation, nor CDR, nor SRM (and I subdivide this into regionally focused
> and global) would, if the only approach pursued, resolve the predicament
> that we are in. Nor is it clear any two of them could solve the overall
> problem. Nor, it seems to me, any three given the time constant for each
> given the generally slow response that nations have been making to address
> the issue. In my view, it will take all four, primarily because we are so
> far along in the situation and the first three are just not on a path to
> being phased up enough to avoid what I think many would find very seriously
> disruptive to unacceptable consequences. And yes, if SRM is stopped at the
> wrong time instead of phased out as CDR, etc. are phased out, there would
> be problems, but this too is also true of the other approaches, even if
> onset of the resulting problems would be different.
>
> Without some very persistent and intelligently applied and implemented
> policies over quite long periods, the environment we know on which society
> now depends will be very seriously damaged. Like Doug, it just seems very
> ill-advised to be ruling out potentially useful (or perhaps not) approaches
> without pursuing the research to find as viable approach (and hopefully
> approaches) as we can.
>
> Mike MacCracken
>
>
> On 2/5/18 8:01 PM, Douglas MacMartin wrote:
>
> Well, yes, no-one would deploy any form of SRM based on today’s knowledge,
> that’s why we need more research.
>
>
>
> But I don’t get why people have to make this all into some competition.
> CDR and SRM are different.  They don’t do the same thing to the climate.
> Words like “best” only make sense when comparing things that are at some
> level substitutable.  We may well need both, just like you don’t choose
> between ambulances and fire trucks and label one of them “by far the best
> approach”
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@
> googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *Leon
> Di Marco
> *Sent:* Monday, February 05, 2018 5:48 PM
> *To:* geoengineering 
> 
> *Subject:* [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism
>
>
>
> Im afraid that both of these replies illustrate the problems associated
> with SRM in the form of MCB.We simply dont know what the effect of the
> large scale (ie sufficient to have noticeable effect) implementation of any
> SRM technique will be and the public will not be impressed by these
> arguments.  I agree with the thrust of Renaud's comment on the hierarchy of
> response with CDR being by far the best approach.  What constitutes an
> emergency sufficient to employ SRM remains to be seen.
>
> LDM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 6:10:52 PM UTC, dankd 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
>
>
> 

RE: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism

[Douglas MacMartin]

Well, yes, no-one would deploy any form of SRM based on today’s knowledge, 
that’s why we need more research.  

 

But I don’t get why people have to make this all into some competition.  CDR 
and SRM are different.  They don’t do the same thing to the climate.  Words 
like “best” only make sense when comparing things that are at some level 
substitutable.  We may well need both, just like you don’t choose between 
ambulances and fire trucks and label one of them “by far the best approach”

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Leon Di Marco
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 5:48 PM
To: geoengineering 
Subject: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism

 

Im afraid that both of these replies illustrate the problems associated with 
SRM in the form of MCB.We simply dont know what the effect of the large 
scale (ie sufficient to have noticeable effect) implementation of any SRM 
technique will be and the public will not be impressed by these arguments.  I 
agree with the thrust of Renaud's comment on the hierarchy of response with CDR 
being by far the best approach.  What constitutes an emergency sufficient to 
employ SRM remains to be seen.

LDM 

 

 

 

On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 6:10:52 PM UTC, dankd 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. 
<https://maps.google.com/?q=35+Dove+St.+Albany,+NY+12210518&entry=gmail&source=g>
 
Albany, NY 12210 
<https://maps.google.com/?q=35+Dove+St.+Albany,+NY+12210518&entry=gmail&source=g>
 

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

[geo] Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism

[Leon Di Marco]

Im afraid that both of these replies illustrate the problems associated 
with SRM in the form of MCB.We simply dont know what the effect of the 
large scale (ie sufficient to have noticeable effect) implementation of any 
SRM technique will be and the public will not be impressed by these 
arguments.  I agree with the thrust of Renaud's comment on the hierarchy of 
response with CDR being by far the best approach.  What constitutes an 
emergency sufficient to employ SRM remains to be seen.
LDM 


 

On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 6:10:52 PM UTC, dankd 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 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 i

Re: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism

[Renaud de RICHTER]

Dear Leon,


"*That does not mean that the technique is necessarily benign*."

In the NAS report they have listed the possible consequences of MCB (*see
at the end below*).


*Do MCB "non- benign effects" over-pass its benefits in a warming world?*

We should all keep in mind that among possible advantages, MCB might be
able to reduce hurricanes intensities or ENZO effects.

If I remember well, the amount of sea salt aerosol needed, as calculated by
the proponents (Professors Latham and Salter) is less than 1% of the
natural sea salt aerosol.

Since the oceans exist, every day, in many many locations all over the
world oceans and coastal areas sea salt aerosols are *naturally *generated.

Of course, volcanic eruptions are also *natural*, but fortunately occur
less often because they have many destructive or dangerous effects. Apart
corrosion of metals and degradation of seashore buildings, what the
published studies on sea salt aerosols do find as environmental detrimental
effects?


Interestingly, every day new knowledge appears on the effects of NaCl.

   - Bondy, A. L., et al., (2017). Inland Sea Spray Aerosol Transport and
   Incomplete Chloride Depletion: Varying Degrees of Reactive Processing
   Observed during SOAS.
    *Environmental
   Science & Technology*, *51*(17), 9533-9542.
   - Morenz, K. J., Shi, Q., Murphy, J. G., & Donaldson, D. J. (2016).
   Nitrate Photolysis in Salty Snow. *The Journal of Physical Chemistry A*,
   *120*(40), 7902-7908.



*There are many advantages to MCB, and among them, one is that "very fine
tuning" is possible!*

The generation of MCB can be adjusted by season, by hemisphere, by
region...

If effects on phytoplankton photosynthesis are among the fears, MCB can be
performed over oceanic dead zones.

If sea salt deposition over land is feared (is this dangerous or
detrimental?) MCB can be performed far from coasts… How much salt does that
represent compared to the quantities of salt used world wide on the roads
during the winter season? Road salt has many effects and at my knowledge
relatively few people protest to its use.

I'm in favor of GHG removal
, NETs
and CDR
technologies
which treat the causes of global warming rather than the symptoms , but if
I have to chose in the future in emergency among SRM proposals, I do prefer
MCB than on SA (stratospheric aerosols)!


Best,

Renaud



*NAS : Environmental Consequences of Marine Cloud Brightening
*

As described in the previous sections “Observations of Marine Cloud
Brightening” and “Modeled Climate System Responses to Marine Cloud
Brightening,” there is some potential for undesirable side effects from MCB
activities, repeated here for the reader’s convenience. In particular,
there is some potential for changes to precipitation patterns and amplitude
(Bala et al., 2011; Jones et al., 2011; Rasch et al., 2009) and possibly
for interannual variability (Russell et al., 2012), although modeling
studies suggest the residual changes are likely less than those for
stratospheric aerosol albedo modification and much smaller than for
unabated greenhouse gas warming. As in the SAAM and idealized albedo
modification strategies, MCB cannot return both temperature and
precipitation patterns to preindustrial conditions, and residual
temperature changes will also remain; for example, the tropics may cool
more than the polar regions (see studies cited above, and Ricke et al.,
2010; Tilmes et al., 2013).

MCB activities might introduce changes to the marine and terrestrial
ecosystems through changes to clouds and cloud area that reduce the surface
flux of sunlight. Changes to the albedo of stratocumulus clouds are likely
to substantially alter the surface flux of sunlight; Latham et al. (2008)
and Jones et al. (2011) estimated that using MCB at amplitudes sufficient
to alter climate would decrease annual mean sunlight reaching the surface
by 30 to 50 W/m2 (~20 percent, approximately doubling cloud radiative
forcing) locally in seeded regions. These changes in surface energy fluxes
are likely to reduce local sea surface temperatures (e.g., Rasch et al.,
2009) and their gradients, perhaps influencing important climate modes such
as El Niño, and might also change deep ocean upwelling and mixing in the
ocean surface layer that delivers nutrients to marine ecosystems, with
possible effects on ecosystem services such as fish availability. These
marine ecosystems also contribute to the natural aerosol concentrations in
near-marine regions that are important in cloud formation (Quinn et al.,
2014), so there may be feedback effects as well. Last, the change in
sunlight reaching the surface may influence photosynthesis, and the
potential

[geo] Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism

[Leon Di Marco]

Firstly, to emphasise that I have no expertise in SRM and do not advocate 
its use, but the following NAS report contains chapters on marine cloud 
brightening, as originally proposed by Latham, using salt water aerosols 
without special chemicals.   That does not mean that the technique is 
necessarily benign.
LDM

https://www.nap.edu/read/18988/chapter/1#xv


*CLIMATEINTERVENTION*

*Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth*
 

Committee on Geoengineering Climate:
Technical Evaluation and Discussion of Impacts

Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate

Ocean Studies Board

Division on Earth and Life Studies

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
  *OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES*

copyright 2015 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved

Albedo Modification by Marine Cloud Brightening 


Science Underlying the Marine Cloud-Brightening Concept 


Observations of Marine Cloud Brightening 


Proposed Mechanisms for Marine Cloud Brightening 


Challenges in the Implementation of Marine Cloud Brightening 


Modeled Climate System Responses to Marine Cloud Brightening 


Observational Requirements for Characterizing Marine Cloud Brightening 


Environmental Consequences of Marine Cloud Brightening 


Technical Feasibility of Marine Cloud Brightening 


Summary and Statement of Research Needs for Marine Cloud Brightening 




On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 6:10:52 PM UTC, dankd 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-con

[geo] Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism

[Leon Di Marco]

For completeness, here is the Harvard Keith Group Funding page-
https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/funding
*Funding*

*Work in David Keith’s group is funded by a variety of public and 
philanthropic sources. Over the decade funding has come from the US NSF, 
Canada’s NSERC, a series of gifts from Bill Gates via the Fund for 
Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER) 
, Harvard start-up funds, and three 
Harvard grants: The Star Family Challenge for Scientific Research, The 
Weatherhead Initiative Research Cluster in International Affairs, and The 
Harvard Climate Solutions Fund.*

*We strongly oppose commercial work on solar geoengineering. The narrow 
engineering costs are so cheap that, if anything, one problem might be it 
is too cheap. In any case, we do not need private competition to make it 
cheaper. We do need transparency about risks and performance that are best 
provided in an academic, open, and public setting.*

*From October 2009 to November 2013 David was president of Carbon 
Engineering  and currently serves as its 
Executive Chairman. Carbon Engineering is a private company developing 
technology for direct capture of CO2 from the atmosphere with a focus on 
making carbon-neutral transportation fuels. Because of concerns about 
conflict of interest David now does little academic work on direct air 
capture. While often referred to as "geoengineering", air capture is 
distinct and very different from solar geoengineering. The Keith Group's 
aim is to work solely on the latter, so there is no direct conflict of 
interest. It is an open research question under which circumstances even 
talk of solar geoengineering could lead to an increased or decreased 
willingness to mitigate carbon. The two clearly are no substitutes. We must 
decrease CO2 emissions to zero regardless of what happens on the solar 
geoengineering front.*





On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 6:10:52 PM UTC, dankd 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 gener

Re: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism

[Hawkins, David]

David Keith does not need me to defend his bona fides but let me make a few 
comments.  I have known David for more than 15 years; long before he began his 
direct air capture work.
While I don’t always agree with David’s contentions, I can say with no 
hesitation that he is a scrupulously honest person who applies his considerable 
intelligence to examine all sides of complex issues.
As an environmental advocate who hopes we never are desperate enough to deploy 
SRM, I will say that David is a person of genuine integrity.
We have enough substantive issues to address with various forms of 
geo-engineering to spend time casting aspersions on good people who are willing 
to speak out on controversial topics.
David Hawkins

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 1, 2018, at 8:30 PM, Leon Di Marco 
mailto:len2...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I realise that this is a rather controversial topic and have posted about this 
paper before
FYI -  both Shell and Exxon gave talks at the new NAS committee on CDR workshop 
held last October in Irvine CA.   While CDR cannot strictly be defined as 
geoengineering it does show that they (as oil majors) have caught up with the 
necessity to control the emissions coming from their products using technical 
means and this will have political consequences.

As for David Keith, he is currently described on the Carbon Engineering site as 
-
http://carbonengineering.com/company-profile/
David Keith  Board Member, Acting Chief Scientist

The CE  home page says-
Air To Fuels  is our technology that uses atmospheric CO₂, captured using our 
DAC process, and combines it with renewably produced hydrogen, to directly 
synthesize clean liquid transportation fuels.
Air to fuels uses renewable electricity to produce hydrogen from water, and 
then combines the hydrogen with captured atmospheric CO₂ to produce hydrocarbon 
fuels such as diesel, gasoline, and Jet-A. Air to fuels gives us a way to 
produce global scale quantities of fuels that are compatible with today’s 
transportation infrastructure and engines, but add little or no fossil carbon 
emissions to the atmosphere.

This description fails to disclose that their DAC process involves using large 
amounts of fossil fuel energy (as high temperature heat from burning natural 
gas) -  it might reasonably be surmised from the above that the process is 
fully "renewable".   Further, CE has been promoting the use of their air 
captured CO2 for enhanced oil recovery, on the rather dubious basis that it 
will lower  the carbon footprint of that oil.

David Keith holds professorships in engineering and in public 
policy at Harvard University-
David Keith, Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics at Harvard’s John A. 
Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and Professor of Public 
Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, the Keith Group is a fast-growing team of 
researchers working at the intersection of climate science and technology with 
a focus on the science and public policy of solar geoengineering

Thus he is in a rather special position with regard to the purposes to which 
his scientific endeavour is devoted and  as such has to be seen not to be 
crossing a line where his financial interest influences his judgement. The 
further he gets with the potential application of  SRM and its consequences the 
more closely his connections will be examined.

Leon Di Marco
FSK Technology Research
LONDON   UK


On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 6:10:52 PM UTC, dankd 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

[geo] Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism

[Leon Di Marco]

I realise that this is a rather controversial topic and have posted about 
this paper before
FYI -  both Shell and Exxon gave talks at the new NAS committee on CDR 
workshop held last October in Irvine CA.   While CDR cannot strictly be 
defined as geoengineering it does show that they (as oil majors) have 
caught up with the necessity to control the emissions coming from their 
products using technical means and this will have political consequences.

As for David Keith, he is currently described on the Carbon Engineering 
site as -

*http://carbonengineering.com/company-profile/*
*David Keith  Board Member, Acting Chief Scientist*

The CE  home page says-
*Air To Fuels  is our technology that uses atmospheric CO₂, captured using 
our DAC process, and combines it with renewably produced hydrogen, to 
directly synthesize clean liquid transportation fuels.*

*Air to fuels uses renewable electricity to produce hydrogen from water, 
and then combines the hydrogen with captured atmospheric CO₂ to produce 
hydrocarbon fuels such as diesel, gasoline, and Jet-A. Air to fuels gives 
us a way to produce global scale quantities of fuels that are compatible 
with today’s transportation infrastructure and engines, but add little or 
no fossil carbon emissions to the atmosphere.*

This description fails to disclose that their DAC process involves using 
large amounts of fossil fuel energy (as high temperature heat from burning 
natural gas) -  it might reasonably be surmised from the above that the 
process is fully "renewable".   Further, CE has been promoting the use 
of their air captured CO2 for enhanced oil recovery, on the rather dubious 
basis that it will lower  the carbon footprint of that oil.

David Keith holds professorships in engineering and in public policy 
 at Harvard University-

*David Keith, Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics at Harvard’s John 
A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and Professor of 
Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, the Keith Group is a 
fast-growing team of researchers working at the intersection of climate 
science and technology with a focus on the science and public policy of 
solar geoengineering*
Thus he is in a rather special position with regard to the purposes to 
which his scientific endeavour is devoted and  as such has to be seen not 
to be crossing a line where his financial interest influences his 
judgement. The further he gets with the potential application of  SRM 
and its consequences the more closely his connections will be examined.  

Leon Di Marco
*FSK Technology Research*
LONDON   UK


On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 6:10:52 PM UTC, dankd 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