We’ll said, Andrew! Martha

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> on 
behalf of Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2023 7:05:59 PM
To: carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com 
<carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> 
<carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering 
<geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [geo] Tiresome nomenclature squabbles

Hi Geo/CDR lists,

I say very little personally - but I feel it's time to confront a problem, 
which has been building up for a while.

I'm noticing increasingly ill-tempered nomenclature egg-throwing in this 
community. It's affecting my work - and it's probably harming other people's 
work, too. I'm therefore cross-posting, in an attempt to get the problem under 
control.

Most particularly, the eggs are being thrown by a few select CDR folk, who 
refuse to cooperate with people/projects describing the field as geoengineering 
(or related terms). Sorry if that's blunt, but them's the facts. I'm declining 
to name names - but I have the receipts, if anyone needs them.

Before addressing the core argument being (incorrectly) made, here's some 
background on my scicomm work. This context is relevant, as the scicomm reaches 
broadly across this field (2k twitter followers, 10k podcast downloads, ~3k 
email readers).
I've always worked on SRM and CDR, in both academic publications and scicomm.

As a matter of historical fact, the CDR list (which I don't moderate) was spun 
out from the geoengineering Google group (which I do moderate), and as a matter 
of convenience the residual list focussed on SRM. This was done to manage comms 
in a practical way, not as some ideological schism. Plenty of people cross both 
lists, and I've seen no reason to rebrand.

The other information services I operate (@geoengineering1 twitter, Reviewer 2 
Does Geoengineering podcast) use the same generic geoengineering branding, and 
have done for a decade or more. This is partly as a matter of historic 
consistency, and partly because the word is being used correctly - as I'll 
explain below. I don't therefore feel that this wording choice is any 
justification for people to attack me or my work.

How bad has it got? Well, I'm reliably informed that I've had my CV binned for 
at least 1 job because I use the word "geoengineering" to describe the field. 
I've recently had several people (without exception CDR types) refuse to 
cooperate with my scicomm work - because I use the word "geoengineering" as a 
convenient, dictionary-accurate, and historically-relevant way to describe my 
work. That's denying their work an audience, based on a squabble over historic 
branding. Coca-Cola doesn't even have cocaine in anymore, but people don't 
argue with bar staff about it. So why argue with me, when my work is much more 
accurately described?

People are free to use whatever words they like to describe what they do; my 
beef isn't with the string of related terms for the same things (geoengineering 
vs climate intervention; solar radiation modification vs solar radiation 
management; carbon removal vs CDR vs GGR; etc.). The problem I have is with the 
petty personal sniping and factionalism that's increasingly creeping in to the 
discipline, as a result.

For the avoidance of doubt: I'm not rebranding everything I do just because a 
few CDR fans won't play nicely with their SRM counterparts. And I'm not going 
to jump into a silo, just because other people think I should.

Notwithstanding the objectionable pettiness of this behaviour, I don't believe 
the core argument bears any real scrutiny. So let's get to that.

With a quick Google I have found both present and historical references to the 
term "geoengineering" (relatedly climate engineering/intervention) being used 
to encompass CDR.

Here's the OED
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095848469;jsessionid=8F01D3B289E2BB2911C69F51B5050E01#:~:text=Geoengineering%20is%20the%20intentional%20large,of%20reducing%20undesired%20climatic%20...

NASEM
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/18805/climate-intervention-carbon-dioxide-removal-and-reliable-sequestration

Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering

Royal Society
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/

Futurelearn / Adam Smith
https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/climate-change-and-public-policy/0/steps/291219

...I could go on.

The issue here isn't the use of one word or another, it's the daftness of 
people shunning opportunities/people because of the utilisation of a standard 
(if not ubiquitous) term to describe the discipline.

So please, let's not have wars over words reminiscent of the kids' book 
"Fatipuffs and Thinnifers" 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fattypuffs_and_Thinifers
...as even the kids reading that book knew it was stupid. We have all got much 
more to lose than to gain from such silly squabbles. Just because we might not 
like words that have been used for 15y or more doesn't mean it's a valid excuse 
to shun people and opportunities.

Thanks for listening. And best wishes to all my geoengineering friends - 
including both the SRM and CDR ones.

Andrew


--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04_FoiiKfqT9ogcapfacZuSU5VJ%3DjwsE5Bn9G1EC5TYCg%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04_FoiiKfqT9ogcapfacZuSU5VJ%3DjwsE5Bn9G1EC5TYCg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/DB3PR0202MB3386A7C3B04E42775ED89C4FADD09%40DB3PR0202MB3386.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com.

Reply via email to