Hi Folks, Although Holly Jean is the best qualified reviewer of this paper within this group, some of my own immediate critiques, on first reading this document, are offered below:
*1) Whoops! Where did 90% of the technology options go?* The entire field of study on negative emissions technology (i.e. negative carbon scenarios such as biochar/olivine/mariculture/AWL etc.) seems to be AWOL. It does seem, from all relevant perspectives, that the lack of contention offered by these negative emission technologies (NETs), at the socioeconomic, scientific and policy levels, positions NETs as the wisest and most logical, socioeconomically and policy level path to follow. Yet, they seem to be the most problematic at the media attention level as they offer the least 'Feast for the Media Beast' (i.e. controversy). A good deal of the scientific debate is also indictable on this count. Do the quiet and productive NETs actually have to run around the classroom with scissors in hand to attract the hyper attention paid to the controversial bad boy SAI? In the future, it may be worth the effort to expand the basic search engine request from "....* search strings “climate engineering” and “geoengineering AND climate”.....*" to include NET centric terms and nomenclature such as biochar, olivine, etc.. GIGO!!!! *2) Media is an active GE development/governance actor, not just a passive observer!!!* The foundational work of Buck is mentioned yet is deviated from in significant and profound ways which does no credit to the value of this paper. We read in the abstract: "* Buck clarifies that it is important to study specific portrayals of environmental issues, **because these may change the course of national and international policies, governance, and* *public opinion. That point of departure is shared by the present paper, and by those of Loukannen et al., Nehrlich and Jaspal, Porter and Hulme, Scholte et al., and Sikka.10 Unlike* *Buck, we do not analyze how the frames enable or hinder specific forms of climate governance, **though we agree that the news media can substantially influence these frames.*" (My highlight) Without correlating the critical relationships between the 'frames' and the positive/negative influence of the media's effect on the debate (and frames), the value of this paper seems to be limited to only the most casual and or novice media/debate observer. If the authors were simply interested in letting the collective media industry know that they are doing a remarkably bad job of keeping up with the current (i.e. sometime within the last 5-6 years) STEM, funding and policy developments, well.... this paper does a good job of doing just that. However, the objective of providing a "*productive method for deepening our understanding of how objects and concepts mutually create meaning, values, and narratives.*" may have been missed.... *unless we collectively recognize the critical need for moving the discourse limelight and focus from SAI to NETs as a means for moving this important debate forward at both the media and policy levels.* The overriding and obvious "*meaning, values, and narratives*" most sought after by the collective media is overwhelmingly and obviously *conflict based*. If a geoengineering concept does not royally piss someone off, it is seemingly not a story worth printing or wasting airtime on. Thus, these highly STEM/policy supportable, supremely environmentally appropriate and prosperous NETs options, which have been in discussion for a number of years and are well understood at the STEM and policy levels (and in many cases are today in use at sub-geoengineering levels), have received virtually no media coverage as an alternative to SAI. This lack of media attention, in turn, further depresses the media value (and venture investment value) of the NETs. Again, GIGO! The collective media does seem to like working the GIGO factor offered, in abundance, within this subject. The production of real world solutions seem to be the last thing the media is actually interested in supporting. 3) The basic story line, that is being reported in the paper, is more science *fiction* than fact: We read that; "*Geoengineering is, unlike other large-scale technologies, not accompanied with promises of a better world. The spokespeople of geoengineering do not offer future prosperity; instead, their legitimacy is based on negative expectations*. Biochar, olivine and marine biomass utilization approaches (and a number of other global scale mitigation technologies), either individually or in concert, offer remarkably efficient mitigation means and methods, abundant socioeconomic prosperity opportunities, addresses climate change mitigation challenges without triggering political conflict nor trans-generational negative socioeconomic/environmental compromises. This gives the growing spectrum of NETs a high degree of legitimacy at the STEM/policy levels and thus potential value to the international media debate....in a logical world. In brief, the media needs to begin listening to the new voices emerging within this important debate if the media wishes to see this debate move forward...in our lifetime. It is the media who will/has largely mediated the discussion, not the scientific community. I recently ran across a short but simplistic statement which seems to speak to our collective difficulties with discourse on this issue. To quote Stephen Hawking (min 52.54 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pat8A6TGBOc>); *"For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination. We learned to talk. And we learned to listen. Speech has allowed the communication of ideas, enabling human beings to work together. To build the impossible. Mankind's greatest achievements have come about by talking. And it's greatest failures by NOT talking. It doesn't have to be like this! Our greatest hopes could become reality in the future. With the technology at our disposal, the possibilities are unbounded. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.".* Clearly, from what Anshelm et.al. is reporting in this media study, it appears that the collective media has *stopped talking and listening*, beyond SAI (circa. 2007-8). The proponents of the highly productive/prosperous, non-controversial and real world ready NETs efforts need to up the PR/media game...with or without scissors. However, making biochar, olivine etc. sound controversial/dangerous/warmongering/egotistical/unethical and amoral...*this does get tiresome*.... may be harder than solving for climate change mitigation itself. Yet, we have no other option but to try. Best regards and thanks to the authors for their work, Michael day, December 2, 2014 11:30:51 AM UTC-8, andrewjlockley wrote: > > http://environmentalhumanities.org/archives/vol5/ > > Jonas Anshelm and Anders Hansson: The Last Chance to Save the Planet? An > Analysis of the Geoengineering Advocacy Discourse in the Public Debate > > Abstract > > Geoengineering, i.e., the deliberate manipulation of the global climate > using grand-scale technologies, poses new challenges in terms of > environmental risks and human–nature relationships. Until recently, these > technologies were considered science fiction, but they are now being > reconsidered by researchers, leading to an emerging public debate. Our aim > is to improve our understanding of the public discourse on geoengineering > in mass media. We analyze 1500 articles published from 2005 to 2013, > constructing four coherent storylines that represent most of the > geoengineering advocacy in the public discourse in mass media. We > scrutinize inconsistencies in this discourse and argue that geoengineering > may be the first example of a grand-scale technology that in some important > respects has clear postmodern tendencies: geoengineering advocacy, for > example, is not based on objective truth claims of the natural sciences and > does not promise a better world. > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
