Hello Andrew, Some remarks: First of all I don't let this put your valuable work down. That would be a pity and is not fair (and for sure not for turning down a possible job).
Personally I don't like the term geo-engineering. About a decade ago Solar Radiation Management and Carbon Removal Management were usually mixed and described in the general term geo-engineering. But since then it has been accepted that Solar Radiation Management is completely different from Carbon Dioxide Removal. >From a physical point of view nobody considers the current CO2 emissions as geo-engineering. So the reverse removing this CO2 is just as same as emitting CO2. Best regards, Pol Knops Op dinsdag 31 januari 2023 om 01:06:13 UTC+1 schreef Andrew Lockley: > 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/4410201f-9021-4727-986f-a7ce8954d893n%40googlegroups.com.
