Dear Emily,
I am sorry you chose to focus on such narrow area of the paper, in which
she perhaps did not elaborate appropriately. But she does so a bit more in
the main body, if you read the complete work. Even so I think that ,
'outlandish' is one of the more terse terms I have heard used to describe
geoengineering in a negative manner. And I mean terse, compared to some
other adjectives used by some geoeng. proponents.
What I though more important than her assessments of individual techniques,
was that, even though she is highly, and rightfully, critical of GE, she
highlights the importance of not only the public's participation in the
dialogue but the need for continued research.
Now the fact that a few 'lay persons' may have a chance to post here,
doesn't mean that the public at large is involved in the conversation.
Consider that Geoengineering has been talked about (with its present CO2
focus) at least since the 1970s, and yet the science in general is still
presented as new.
Regarding her assessment that continued research is needed, I would think
that is something geoengineering researchers would welcome.
Dear Dr. Salter,
Thank you for the paper, I have read and written a little on the cooling
effects of these type of clouds and the hydrological cycle in general.
I am not a professional scientist. I blog and comment from a layperson's
point of view. I guess the knowledge I do possess is what the average lay
person with some interest may be able to gather these days.
I would generally agree with you that we need to know more. But, why not
start first by being *exhaustive* about knowing the effects of aviation
emissions and ship tracks, which are two of the closest anthropogenic
analogs ("albeit imperfect") to SRM?
Regarding the roll of clouds, and in my limited capacity, I have written a
few entries in my blog such as these:
On cirrus: A SAFER ALTERNATIVE TO SOLAR RADIATION MANAGEMENT
http://geoengineeringclimateissues.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-safer-alternative-to-solar-radiation.html
On type of cloud: Short cutting the cooling properties of the hydrological
cycle
http://geoengineeringclimateissues.blogspot.com/2013/04/short-cutting-cooling-properties-of.html
Water vs Heat - Re. Global warming affects crop yields, but it's the water
not the heat
http://geoengineeringclimateissues.blogspot.com/2013/03/wow-out-just-today-march-4-2013-eye.html
Best Regards,
Oscar Escobar
A #Geoengineering #Climate Issues Blog – Geoingeniería
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 3:01:47 AM UTC-5, Emily L-B wrote:
>
> Hi thanks for this. Perhaps it is a cultural or translation issue, but
> 'outlandish' is quite an 'outlandish' word for a scientific paper. - I am
> struck by the application of this term for painting roofs white, OIF and
> mirrors in space because taking these examples, we do all of these things
> already:
> We have, i dont know how many, black rooves in the world already(why is
> white worse);
> We pump sewage and drain fertiliser from the land around the world in I
> dont know what quantity daily in very concentrated time and space in
> inshore waters which are much more vulnerable (fertilising the ocean in
> shallow seas with low water exchange often);
> And we pump i dont know how much dust into the atmosphere daily, globally,
> on a rather large scale.
> On top of these, we are already doing an amazing amount of other things to
> Earth on the most incredible scale. And we dont seem to be able to agree to
> stop.
> I am not sure i understand why efforts with the intention of being
> positive are viewed so negatively when things we do in full knowledge of
> their negative impacts are allowed to continue and increase with little or
> no successful strategies to stop them.
> Best wishes,
> Emily.
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone on O2
> ------------------------------
> *From: * Oscar Escobar <oscar200...@gmail.com <javascript:>>
> *Sender: * geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>
> *Date: *Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:24:12 -0800 (PST)
> *To: *<geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>>
> *ReplyTo: * oscar200...@gmail.com <javascript:>
> *Subject: *[geo] Geoengineering in a World Risk Society - By Tina Sikka.
>
> Hello all,
>
> A short intro about me. My name is Oscar Escobar, I blog about
> geoengineering (climate engineering) here:
>
> A #Geoengineering #Climate Issues Blog - Geoingeniería
> Geoengineering - Climate Engineering from a layman's critical perspective.
> http://geoengineeringclimateissues.blogspot.com/
>
> Previously I described myself as 'opposed' to geoengineering. This
> continues to be largely accurate in the case of SRM and OIF deployment.
> But I do think that more public knowledge is important for all concerned.
>
> Twitt here: @oscare2000 https://twitter.com/oscare2000
> paperli http://paper.li/oscare2000/1347466963
>
>
> This article by Tina Sikka stroke a chord with me, I am posting it here
> hoping it helps in broadening the conversation,
>
> best regards,
>
> Oscar Escobar
> Lakeland, FL - EEUU
>
>
>
> *Geoengineering in a World Risk Society*
> By Tina Sikka.
> (Full paper in academia.edu (scroll down a few pages)
> https://www.academia.edu/5672333/Geoengineering_in_a_World_Risk_Society
>
> Abstract:
> http://ijc.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.185/prod.126
> Published by The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and
> Responses
>
> In the following paper, I draw on Ulrich Beck’s model of the world risk
> society to examine, unpack and critique geoengineering technologies.
> Briefly, geoengineering can be defined as large-scale technological
> interventions into the environment in an attempt to mitigate or even
> reverse climate change. They include such proposals as painting the
> surfaces of buildings white to reflect the sun’s rays, placing mirrors in
> space for similar ends or the more interventionist seeding of oceans with
> iron in order to encourage the growth of carbon absorbing algae blooms.
> What is startling about geoengineering is that despite its seeming
> outlandishness, it has recently been seriously considered by a number of
> governments, corporations, research institutes and professional scientific
> bodies.
>
> In an attempt to better understand and appreciate the possible normative,
> political, economic and environmental consequences of such large-scale
> technological interventions, I have found Beck’s thesis of reflexive
> modernity and the world risk society to be particularly useful and
> illuminating. Essentially, Beck’s thesis is that we live in a world that
> distinguished from the past by the extent to which it is constituted by
> global technological risks that one, tears down traditional boundaries
> between people and their environments (de-localization); two, resists
> anticipation by conventional scientific and/or rational means; three,
> denies compensation or insurability against danger; and four, re-orients
> social attention to the constant anticipation of catastrophe. These risks,
> as Beck argues, “represents a shock for the whole of humanity” who never
> could have anticipated “the self-destructiveness–not only physically but
> also ethical–of unleashed modernity” (Beck, 2006, p. 330).
>
> In applying these insights to geoengineering, it becomes clear that these
> technologies are, by definition, risk technologies. I argue that it is
> their inherently global, unpredictable, uninsurable and potentially
> catastrophic character, which can be both inimitable, frightening, which
> renders them in need of further study. As such, in undertaking an
> examination of these questions, I have chosen to divide this article into
> the following sections: I begin with a brief introduction to geoengineering
> technologies and discuss not only what they are and what they are supposed
> to do. Following this, I delve into a more considered discussion of how
> geoengineering technologies are in fact risk technologies as Beck defines
> them. I begin with an overview of reflexive modernization, followed by
> discussions Beck’s concepts of risk, insurability and responsibility, and
> subpolitics, which I use to examine geoengineering in turn.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
