I found this paragraph (with no footnotes or citations) to be interesting: Fifth, the critical discourse is profoundly suspicious that several of the leading proponents of geoengineering are not primarily devoted to long-term sustainability worldwide, but rather to promoting their own profits (e.g., from patent rights), advancing personal careers, or serving the interests of think tanks or the fossil fuel industry. These accusations have been levelled because some researchers have been found to have both scientific and economic interests in specific technologies or field experiments, and because some of their work has been financed by venture capitalists. The strong support that geoengineering efforts have received from conservative think tanks and fossil fuel industry lobbying has certainly strengthened these suspicions.
It makes for an interesting, logical story which may confirm some observers' biases. In fact, when I began examining the CE issue, this was my belief. After actual research, I have found this to be largely untrue or, where factually true, misleading in its implications. -Jesse ----------------------------------------- Jesse L. Reynolds European and International Public Law Tilburg Sustainability Center Tilburg University, The Netherlands Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl<mailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl> http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/ From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira Sent: 02 June 2014 19:29 To: Greg Rau Cc: geoengineering Subject: Re: Fw: [geo] Battling Promethean dreams and Trojan horses: Revealing the critical discourses of geoengineering -- ScienceDirect This is published in a journal called "Energy Research & Social Science". As far as I can tell, this article constitutes neither energy research nor social science. If it is indeed social science: What is the testable hypothesis? What are the methods for testing the hypothesis? What results did those methods yield? And what did the uncertainty analysis yield? One of their central conclusions is the following: Moreover, the until recently nearly hegemonic dominance of the advocacy discourse has not encouraged the fundamental questioning of geoengineering or created room for political controversies. I am surprised to learn that a fundamental questioning of geoengineering has not been encouraged and that no room has been created for political controversies. I am eager to learn the methods that can be applied to observational data to reach such significant conclusions. _______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu<mailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira Assistant: Dawn Ross <dr...@carnegiescience.edu<mailto:dr...@carnegiescience.edu>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>> wrote: Interesting review and analysis of the philosophic vitriol against GE. "In sum, the fundamental dissensus [difference of opinion] between the two discourses is related mainly to how the views of social change, knowledge limits, and humanity's ability to control nature are spelled out in the two discourses. While the critical discourse stresses the possibility and necessity of fundamentally changing existing social, economic, and political structures, the advocacy discourse downplays these questions and instead emphasizes that new technologies must be developed immediately to counteract climate change. The idea that it might be possible to save the planet by deploying grand-scale technology is depicted in the discourse critical of geoengineering as both a Promethean dream and a way of sustaining the unsustainable, i.e., a way to maintain dysfunctional societal structures. On the other hand, the visions of a fundamentally reoriented society that permeate the critical discourse are deemed naïve and possibly even irresponsible in the advocacy discourse in this age of global environmental threats." In my own view I'm not downplaying social, economic, and political structures, they are essential. Rather it is the ongoing failure of these structures to effectively address the problem http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/ using "conventional" approaches that forces me and others to consider alternative actions. I stress the word "consider" meaning research and evaluation; lets first find out if there are any safe and effective alternative actions. Then we can turn it over the the social, economic, and political structures to consider implementation. Failure here to effectively implement Plan A and/or Plan B (if there are any) then clearly comes down to a failure of social, economic, and political structures, not technology. In any case at this stage let's not prematurely exclude any plans, since failure to stabilize climate if not CO2 would not seem to be in either philosophical group's interest. Greg ________________________________ From: Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com<mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> To: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> Sent: Monday, June 2, 2014 5:05 AM Subject: [geo] Battling Promethean dreams and Trojan horses: Revealing the critical discourses of geoengineering -- ScienceDirect http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629614000346 Energy Research & Social Science June 2014, Vol.2:135-144, doi:10.1016/j.erss.2014.04.001 Original research article Battling Promethean dreams and Trojan horses: Revealing the critical discourses of geoengineering Jonas Anshelm, Anders Hansson Abstract Geoengineering could counteract climate change by either altering the earth's global energy balance by reflecting sunlight or removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Geoengineering evokes various ethical and political challenges that are increasingly reflected in public debate and deliberation. Via a qualitative textual analysis of 1500 articles, we investigate discursive claims critical of geoengineering, considering what subjects are the most controversial, and what worldviews, values, and problematizations are shared by the actors subscribing to this discourse. We argue that the controversy about geoengineering differs, discursively, from other techno-political conflicts. Geoengineering proponents are described as reluctantly favouring research and deployment and displaying an unusual self-reflexivity, as they are well aware of and seriously consider all the technology's risks. Our analysis demonstrates that the discourse critical of geoengineering differs from and questions the dominant pro-geoengineering discourse in several profound ways with lasting implications for energy scholarship and analysis. Keywords Geoengineering, Discourse, Climate change, Public debate -- 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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
