Professor Sugiyama, cc List
1. Thanks for the PNAS Decision Pathway URL you provided below.
Extensive use of the terms “deliberative” and “values”. They did look at
several CDR options - with the respondents favoring (as usual) afforestation.
Two tutorials used in the deliberative part of the process.
The authors listed 5 steps in thinking through - using “PrOACT” (42):
understand the problem context,
clarify objectives,
define alternatives,
identify consequences, and
highlight key tradeoffs
There are several other useful lists. I liked this paper.
The Supplemental Information is only two figures, but get across the point that
incoming values (OT the technologies themselves) predict the polling results.
See
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2016/01/02/1508896113.DCSupplemental/pnas.201508896SI.pdf
<http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2016/01/02/1508896113.DCSupplemental/pnas.201508896SI.pdf>
.
I have recently been reading George Layoff on values, frames, etc. - and see
the current US election throughout this PNAS values-oriented paper
There is some hint at how the 800 respondents might have “voted” on
biochar - but, unfortunately, biochar was not one of the selected alternatives.
2. In looking further at your Institute’s work I found this also by
you http://pari.u-tokyo.ac.jp/policy/WP16_23.pdf
<http://pari.u-tokyo.ac.jp/policy/WP16_23.pdf> . This was also interesting,
though also limited to SRM, so I won’t go further with that.
3. Japan has had a world-leading role in biochar (the CDR option I am
interested in) development. I saw much of that Japanese leadership in 2011 at
a biochar conference in Kyoto. On the last day we visited one of several dozen
rice-hull carbonization facilities operated by Kansei Electric. It could be
interesting in a survey-theory sense to compare the CDR views of Japanese
farmers (who have been buying char from these facilities for years) with other
Japanese who might never heard the word “biochar” - all in a
climate-deliberative (not soil-deliberative) setting.
4. Another poll of interest to me would be for your group to compare
all the bio-oriented CDR options from a Japanese perspective: afforestation,
BECCS, biochar, biomass burial, etc. They are all quite different, but with
some obvious similarities.
Again, thanks for adding more to this dialog.
Ron
> On Aug 13, 2016, at 9:40 AM, Masa Sugiyama <msugiy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Andrew, Ron, and all,
>
> I totally agree that we should look into the CDR/NET
> part of the equation. And I also think things like deliberative polling would
> be really needed.
> We just think this is only a start.
>
> BTW, here's a study using the method called
> a decision pathway survey.
> http://m.pnas.org/content/113/3/560
>
> Best,
> Masa
>
> --
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
