Dear Michael
I really am surprised that you claim to be unable to see the direct relevance of this topic to CDR policy. It is very clear that albedo enhancement is essential to prevent dangerous warming. Many CDR proponents are in denial of this basic science. This is a political problem delaying effective action on climate change. Conversation within CDR circles and more broadly can help improve understanding of the need to integrate direct climate cooling with the slower and indirect cooling methods provided by CDR and emission reduction. Disparaging SRM should be discouraged and challenged when it occurs. It is understandable that these distorted beliefs against SRM have gained credence, given that much literature presents unbalanced and misinformed views criticising the moral case for geoengineering, ignoring cost benefit analysis and realistic scenarios. The scientific community has a responsibility to take an evidence based approach to these sensitive complex questions. Robert Tulip From: carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com <carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Michael Hayes Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2023 4:38 AM To: Robert Tulip <rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au> Cc: Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>; carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com <carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> <carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [CDR] Tiresome nomenclature squabbles What is the value of this discussion to the subject of CDR? So far: 1) Someone reports getting their feelings hurt. 2) We've been presented with an odd ball list of largely unsupportable assumptions and rambling personal views about CDR supporters etc. This is not the GE group nor an emotional support group. I don't mean to be insensitive to those in need of emotional support yet this is a STEM, policy, and economic space focused upon CDR. What has been presented has nothing to do with the STEM, policy, or the economics of CDR, that I can find. Best regards On Wed, Feb 1, 2023, 5:25 AM 'Robert Tulip' via Carbon Dioxide Removal <carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com <mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> > wrote: Andrew As you note, many advocates of CDR are totally opposed to SRM. This is partly due to the widely held view among the general public that SRM is playing God, tinkering with nature, a dangerous intervention, whereas CDR is benign. As a result of this context, some CDR proponents tactically distance themselves from SRM and the associated terminology of geoengineering. This is either because they really believe the anti-SRM ideology, or just in order to get investment and support and engagement. Some NGOs reportedly oppose SRM because their finance departments believe supporting it would be bad for their fundraising efforts, due to widespread opposition among their donor base. They also believe that discussing SRM confuses their single message of the need to cut emissions. This situation reflects the priority of politics over science in the formation of opinion. It means the united front on climate action is seen as including CDR, in line with IPCC acceptance, but not SRM, which was given pariah status in the last IPCC Summary For Policymakers. The confused moral hazard ideology is a main support for this political line. This hostile attitude involves a refusal to see the earth as a single unified system, an inability to consider that earth system fragility and sensitivity can only be stabilised by brightening the planet. Greta Thunberg’s recent publication, The Climate Book, contains the assertion that “all geoengineering schemes are attempts to manipulate the Earth with the same domineering mindset that got us into the climate crisis in the first place.” This quasi-religious hostility to technology commands broad support among climate activists, producing a refusal to listen to reason, despite being a recipe for social and economic and ecological collapse. The philosophical and psychological and political blockages to albedo enhancement as a primary climate objective lead to highly dubious arguments, such as that accelerated emission reduction and CDR could prevent tipping points without any action on albedo. It is essential to defend the concept of geoengineering, since questioning it demonstrates an inability to understand the climate problem. These concerns ought to be the subject of much more discussion and debate, as they are actually central to planetary security, with significant moral implications. Thank you for highlighting the problem. Robert Tulip From: carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com <mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> <carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com <mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> > On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley Sent: Tuesday, 31 January 2023 11:06 AM To: carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com <mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> <carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com <mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> > <carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com <mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> >; geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > Subject: [CDR] 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 "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <mailto:carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-04_FoiiKfqT9ogcapfacZuSU5VJ%3DjwsE5Bn9G1EC5TYCg%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/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 "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <mailto:carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/046901d93640%24a995bd70%24fcc13850%24%40yahoo.com.au <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/046901d93640%24a995bd70%24fcc13850%24%40yahoo.com.au?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <mailto:carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1fBGTWVNACZWfEiek0ecCz1ztPvPAkrkaBwwC1nVWefWw%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1fBGTWVNACZWfEiek0ecCz1ztPvPAkrkaBwwC1nVWefWw%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/01a601d9374f%2455ff0260%2401fd0720%24%40yahoo.com.au.
